Back
High Court Of Orissa
D. P. MOHAPATRA
SRUTI SHEKHAR SINGH SAMANTA - Appellant
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORISSA ROAD TRANSPORT, BERHAMPUR, GANJAM - Respondent
MISC. APPEAL 98 Of 1986
Decided On : 11/19/1990
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - ASSESSMENT - PRINCIPLES - SERIOUS HEAD INJURY RESULTING IN PARALYSIS AND MENTAL DISABILITY - AWARD OF RS. 6,000/- BY TRIBUNAL HELD GROSSLY INADEQUATE - COMPENSATION ENHANCED TO RS. 40,000/- - DEATH OF FATHER DUE TO ACCIDENT - TRIBUNAL'S AWARD OF RS. 24,000/- MODIFIED TO RS. 30,000/-.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a 20-year-old student, sustained serious head injuries and other injuries in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's driver. He was hospitalized for a month and continued to suffer from paralysis and mental disability five years after the accident. The appellant's father, aged 48, who was also in the vehicle, died at the scene of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's driver and awarded the appellant Rs. 6,000/- for his injuries and Rs. 24,000/- for the loss of his father's income. The appellant challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the appellant's injuries was adequate. 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of the appellant's father's income was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the appellant's injuries was grossly inadequate. The court considered the appellant's age, the severity of his injuries, the long-term impact of his injuries on his life, and the lack of evidence of special damages incurred by the appellant. The court also took into account the principles of compensation for personal injuries, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, shortened expectation of life, loss of earnings or earning capacity, and medical treatment and other special damages. The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant to Rs. 40,000/-. 2. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of the appellant's father's income was also inadequate. The court considered the deceased's age, his income, and the appellant's dependency on his father. The court took into account the fact that the appellant was a student at the time of the accident and that he would have continued to be dependent on his father for financial support for a reasonable period of time. The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant to Rs. 30,000/-.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed. The awards passed by the Tribunal were modified to the extent that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 40,000/- for the injuries sustained by him and Rs. 30,000/- on account of the loss of income due to the death of his father.
D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THESE appeals filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are directed against the award passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri in Misc. Cases Nos. 183 and 184 of 1981. Both the Misc. Cases were filed by the appellant Sruti Shekhar Singh Samanta for compensation on account of the accident which took place on 2-2-1979. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this judgment.
( 2 ) THE accident giving rise to the proceedings for compensation took place on 2-2-1979 at 4. 30 p. m. when there was a head-on collision between the Jeep bearing registration No. ORD 1540 in which the appellant, his father late Mayadhar Singh Samanta and some others were travelling and the road train comprised of two buses bearing registration No. ORG 2392 and ORG 2118 belonging to the Orissa Road Transport Company. The place of the accident was near Santha Tulsidas Tank on the National Highway between Cuttack and Bhubaneswar when the jeep was going from Cuttack towards Bhubaneswar and the road train was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident the appellant and his father were seriously injured, the appellant survived but his father succumbed to the injuries. Regarding the accident it is the case of the appellant that the jeep was kept on the left side of the road to enable the driver to change rear right wheel as the tire of that wheel was punctured and the appellant and his father were standing near the vehicle when the road train came at great speed, dashed against the vehicle and injured them. According to the appellant, the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the road train by its driver. It was his further case that due to the accident he sustained serious head injuries, fracture of the right leg and the left side hip bone and some other injuries; he was kept as an indoor patient in the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital for about three months. Since then he has been a paralytic on the right side, is unable to sit properly and his mental condition is not yet normal. Due to the accident the appellant who was then a student of Class XI has been compelled to discontinue his studies and he is not able to do any serious mental work because of his inability to concentrate on anything. It is also the case of the appellant that his father who was aged 48 years at the time of the accident was maintaining him and on account of his death he has been deprived of his help and assistance for life. On these averments the appellant filed Misc. Case No. 183 of 1981 claiming compensation of Rs 93,000 /- for injuries sustained by ' him and Misc. Case No. 184 of 1981 claiming compensation of Rs. 43,000/- for loss due to death of his father.
( 3 ) THE respondent, the sole opposite party in the cases refuted the claims in his written statement. Regarding the accident, the case of the respondent was that while the road train was proceeding at normal speed from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack and was on the left side of the road the jeep coming from the opposite direction swerved to the right and dashed against it. According to the respondent the driver of the jeep was not able to control the vehicle and that was the cause for his vehicles dashing against the road train. Regarding the quantum of compensation the respondent generally denied the claims and put the claimant to strict proof of his case.
( 4 ) THE appellant examined five witnesses including himself. The Conductor of the road train was the sole witness for the respondent.
( 5 ) THE Tribunal on assessment of the materials on record held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the road train by its driver. In this connection the Tribunal accepting the M. V. I' report observed that the accident took place due to puncture of the right rear wheel of the jeep for which the driver could not control the said vehicle
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
